AROOR CO-OP URBAN SOCIETY LTD,KOZHIKKODE vs. ITO, KOZHIKKODE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shrigeorge George K.And Shrilaxmi Prasad Sahuaroor Co-Operative Urbn Society Dcit, Central Prossing Centre Aroor P.O., Kakkattil 673507 Bangalore Vs.

section 80P u/s 143(1)(a). The Reserves and provisions created earlier year which was disallowed in the computation of total income in that year reversed and credited to Profit and loss account during the year deducted in the statement of computation during the year should not be added to the total income. It may please be noted that during

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

disallowances, which was made\nin the original assessment order completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act\ndated 20.03.2015.\n6. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who\ndismissed the appeal of the as since no addition was made in the\nassessment made pursuant to notice u/s. 153A of the Act.\n7. Being aggrieved, the appellant

DCIT, TRIVANDRUM vs. BRAHMOS AEROSPACE( THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) LTD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal filedby

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am Deputy Commissioner Brahmos Aerospace Of Income Tax, (Thiruvananthapuram) Ltd., Circle-1(1), V. Chackai, Thiruvananthapuram Beach Post, Kerala Tiruvananthapuram, Kerala Pan – Aabck2217K Appellant Respondent

53 Taxman 85. The second submission is based on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 157 Taxman 1. 11. (A) In Jute Corpn. of India Ltd. (supra) for the assessment year 1974-75 the appellant did not claim any deduction of its liability towards purchase tax under the provisions of the Bengal

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

disallowing such claims had also taken support from the decision of a Supreme Court, wherein it has been laid down that the Assessing Officer cannot entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by filing a revised return. Since the assessee neither made any such claim in the original return filed under section 139(1), nor in any regular assessment proceedings

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

disallowing such claims had also taken support from the decision of a Supreme Court, wherein it has been laid down that the Assessing Officer cannot entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by filing a revised return. Since the assessee neither made any such claim in the original return filed under section 139(1), nor in any regular assessment proceedings

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

disallowing such claims had also taken support from the decision of a Supreme Court, wherein it has been laid down that the Assessing Officer cannot entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by filing a revised return. Since the assessee neither made any such claim in the original return filed under section 139(1), nor in any regular assessment proceedings

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LTD,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

disallowing such claims had also taken support from the decision of a Supreme Court, wherein it has been laid down that the Assessing Officer cannot entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by filing a revised return. Since the assessee neither made any such claim in the original return filed under section 139(1), nor in any regular assessment proceedings

M/S.APOLLO TYRES LTD,COCHIN vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Apollo Tyres Ltd. .......... Appellant 3Rd Floor, Areekal Mansion, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi 682036 [Pan: Aaaca6990Q] Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Kochi ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, Adv. Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.09.2025

1) of the Act. Accordingly, disallowed the claim for allowance as revenue expenditure of pre-operative expenditure ofRs.13,28,53,754/-. iv. Disallowance of excess claim of deduction u/s. 35(2AB) – The appellant company made claim for deduction of Rs. 80,28,91.589/- u/s. 35(2AB) of the Act as against the expenditure certified by DSIR of Rs. 24,53

THE DCIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.SFO TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD, ALUVA

In the result, this appeal filed by Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am

1,83,55,106/- by the AO by invoking provisions of Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the 1962 Rules, being Rule 8D(2)(ii) and 8D(2)(iii) of the 1962 Rules, which disallowance was later stood deleted by ld. CIT(A). The working of the disallowance of expenditure incurred in relation to earning of an income which

THE DCIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.SFO TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD, ALUVA

In the result, this appeal filed by Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am

1,83,55,106/- by the AO by invoking provisions of Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the 1962 Rules, being Rule 8D(2)(ii) and 8D(2)(iii) of the 1962 Rules, which disallowance was later stood deleted by ld. CIT(A). The working of the disallowance of expenditure incurred in relation to earning of an income which

THE DCIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.SFO TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD, ALUVA

In the result, this appeal filed by Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am

1,83,55,106/- by the AO by invoking provisions of Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the 1962 Rules, being Rule 8D(2)(ii) and 8D(2)(iii) of the 1962 Rules, which disallowance was later stood deleted by ld. CIT(A). The working of the disallowance of expenditure incurred in relation to earning of an income which

THE DCIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.SFO TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD, ERNAKULAM

In the result, this appeal filed by Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am

1,83,55,106/- by the AO by invoking provisions of Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the 1962 Rules, being Rule 8D(2)(ii) and 8D(2)(iii) of the 1962 Rules, which disallowance was later stood deleted by ld. CIT(A). The working of the disallowance of expenditure incurred in relation to earning of an income which

THE DCIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.SFO TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD, ALUVA

In the result, this appeal filed by Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am

1,83,55,106/- by the AO by invoking provisions of Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the 1962 Rules, being Rule 8D(2)(ii) and 8D(2)(iii) of the 1962 Rules, which disallowance was later stood deleted by ld. CIT(A). The working of the disallowance of expenditure incurred in relation to earning of an income which

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), THRRISSUR vs. MANJILAS AGRO FOODS PVT. LTD., THRISSUR

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.

53. The distinction between an employer’s contribution which is its primary liability under law – in terms of Section 36(1)(iv), and its liability to deposit amounts received by it or deducted by it (Section 36(1)(va)) is, thus crucial. The former forms part of the employers’ income, and the later retains its character as an income (albeit

MANJILAS AGRO FOOD PVT.LTD.,THRISSUR vs. THE ITO,WARD-1(2),, THRISSUR

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.

53. The distinction between an employer’s contribution which is its primary liability under law – in terms of Section 36(1)(iv), and its liability to deposit amounts received by it or deducted by it (Section 36(1)(va)) is, thus crucial. The former forms part of the employers’ income, and the later retains its character as an income (albeit

MANJILAS AGRO FOODS PVT. LTD,THRISSUR vs. THACIT,CIRCLE-1(1 ), THRISSUR

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.

53. The distinction between an employer’s contribution which is its primary liability under law – in terms of Section 36(1)(iv), and its liability to deposit amounts received by it or deducted by it (Section 36(1)(va)) is, thus crucial. The former forms part of the employers’ income, and the later retains its character as an income (albeit

ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE -1 (1), KOCHI vs. M/S GEOFIN COMTRADE LTD, KOCHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

1)(viia), is to be with reference to debts other than those written off and, further, w.e.f. 01.04.1999 (i.e., AY 2000-01 onwards), to include advances by both rural and urban branches of a scheduled or unscheduled bank and, further, statutorily mandated (w.e.f. 01.04.2013) to be per a single account. Without doubt, recovery in an account qua which such

ACIT, KOCHI vs. M/S.GEOFIN COMTRADE LTD, KOCHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

1)(viia), is to be with reference to debts other than those written off and, further, w.e.f. 01.04.1999 (i.e., AY 2000-01 onwards), to include advances by both rural and urban branches of a scheduled or unscheduled bank and, further, statutorily mandated (w.e.f. 01.04.2013) to be per a single account. Without doubt, recovery in an account qua which such

ACIT, KOCHI vs. FEDERAL BANK LTD, ALUVA

In the result, appeals of the Assessee and revenue for AY 2008-09 to 2010-

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathy

53 taxman 85(SC) it was held that the first appellate authority has wide powers u/s.251(1)(a) of the Act and can entertain an additional claim. In National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC) it was held that the purpose of proceedings under the Act is for correct determination of tax liability and examination